track_remove

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the destructive action and the selection precondition, but it does not mention consequences such as irreversibility, undoability, or behavior when no tracks are selected. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, with the core action first and the prerequisite second. Every word contributes; there is no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool, this definition gives the core action and the required precondition. It is mostly complete, though a note about irreversibility or no-selection behavior would make it fully robust given the absence of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still usefully points to select_tracks as the way to establish the target tracks, which is more than the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Remove') and resource ('currently selected track(s)'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like edit_delete or label_remove, but the track-specific scope is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an explicit usage prerequisite: 'Select tracks first with select_tracks.' This tells an agent what must happen before invoking this tool. It does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.